About the “surprise question”/Response

Constantini et al congratulate Downar and colleagues for their systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of the surprise question, a tool widely publicized to identify patients in the last year of life. However, they believe that that there are errors in two of the original studies. Downa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ) 2017-06, Vol.189 (23), p.E807
Main Authors: Costantini, Massimo, Higginson, Irene J, Merlo, Domenico F, Di Leo, Silvia, Tanzi, Silvia, Downar, James, Goldman, Russell, Pinto, Ruxandra, Englesakis, Marina, Adhikari, Neill K J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic libraries
Colleges & universities
Critical care
Family physicians
Health care networks
Health sciences
Hospice care
Kidney diseases
Medical prognosis
Meta-analysis
Mortality
Palliative care
Patients
Quality of life
Systematic review
Terminal illnesses
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Constantini et al congratulate Downar and colleagues for their systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of the surprise question, a tool widely publicized to identify patients in the last year of life. However, they believe that that there are errors in two of the original studies. Downar et al defend their study, citing that they recognized the error and corrected it in their analysis.
ISSN:0820-3946
1488-2329
DOI:10.1503/cmaj.733083